IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 107 CM-7014-LPA-2025 in/and LPA-2789-2025 Date of Decision: 15.09.2025 Avtar Singh ....Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI ---- Present: Mr. Sukhmeet Singh, Advocate for the appellant. **** Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral) CM-7014-LPA-2025 This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 16 days in filing the appeal. Keeping in the view facts mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 16 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. LPA-2789-2025 1. In the present appeal, the challenge is to the order dated 01.07.2025 passed in CWP-17066-2025 titled as Avtar Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, by the learned Single Judge, by which, the writ petition for issuance of directions to respondents No.2 and 3 for taking appropriate legal action against respondents No.4 and 5 for misleading and defauding the public and residents as alleged of Village Kotha Guru, District Bathinda by claiming VARINDER PRASHAD 2025.09.18 13:09 I attest to the accuracy of this document PHHC LPA-2789-2025 -: 2 :- themselves to be the President of Nagar Panchayat, was dismissed however liberty was given to the appellant herein to avail appropriate remedy, in case available, in accordance with law. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the only grievance raised was that respondent No.5 and his wife were creating hindrance in the smooth running of the office of Nagar Panchayat, Village Kotha Guru, District Bathinda, and misusing the Government functionary by keeping votes in different wards and has been wrongly elected as Municipal Councillor but the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the controversy of the present case in the impugned order dated 01.07.2025. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record with his able assistance. 4. A bare perusal of the paragraph 6 of the order dated 01.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge clearly shows that no material has been placed on record to support the accusations by the appellant in the present petition against the respondent and the said accusation has only been made, as ‘No Confidence Motion’ has already been moved against the appellant by the respondent. 5. Today again, learned counsel for the appellant was given opportunity to prove the allegations but no evidence has been placed by him before this Court to substantiate his claim. 6. Keeping in view the above, the order dated 01.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge has not been shown to be perversed either on facts or law. No ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case. VARINDER PRASHAD 2025.09.18 13:09 I attest to the accuracy of this document PHHC LPA-2789-2025 -: 3 :- 7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 8. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE (VIKAS SURI) September 15, 2025 JUDGE Varinder Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No VARINDER PRASHAD 2025.09.18 13:09 I attest to the accuracy of this document PHHC